Patent Application 18705082 - ARRANGEMENT OF LIGHT SHAPING OPTICAL ELEMENTS - Rejection
Appearance
Patent Application 18705082 - ARRANGEMENT OF LIGHT SHAPING OPTICAL ELEMENTS
Title: ARRANGEMENT OF LIGHT SHAPING OPTICAL ELEMENTS FOR AUTOMOTIVE SIGNAL LIGHTING
Application Information
- Invention Title: ARRANGEMENT OF LIGHT SHAPING OPTICAL ELEMENTS FOR AUTOMOTIVE SIGNAL LIGHTING
- Application Number: 18705082
- Submission Date: 2025-04-08T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2024-04-26T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2024-04-26T00:00:00.000Z
- Examiner Employee Number: 91117
- Art Unit: 2875
- Tech Center: 2800
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 3
Cited Patents
No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text
DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 uses the limitation “preferentially”. The term is not clear whether the claimed invention does or does not require the “preferential” limitations. I.e. it is unclear if the limitations are optional. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichinoe (U.S. 11,079,087) in view of Sato (U.S 11,041,600) and Yoshino (U.S. 11,846,400, filed 5/27/2020 as JP 2020092310, all references made to the US patent for ease of reference). Regarding claim 1, Ichinoe teaches a vehicle light (see fig. 7, 8) comprising: a plurality of individual light sources (two light sources 30 shown), each light source being separated in space from neighboring ones of the light sources; a plurality of collimators (collimating reflector 222f) configured to collimate light emitted from the light sources; a light shaping element having a refractive index and which includes: a first surface (222a) located at a first interface between the light shaping element and air around the light shaping element (TIR) and at a first light-path distance from the light sources; and a second surface (222h1) located at a second interface between the light shaping element and air around the light shaping element (on emission surface) and at a second light-path distance from the first diffusing surface, the first propagation direction being a direction in which light propagates after being diffused by the first diffusing surface and before being diffused by the second diffusing surface, and the second propagation direction being a direction in which light propagates after being diffused by the second diffusing surface. Ichinoe does not specifically teach that the first surface and the second surface are diffusing surfaces. Sato teaches a light shaping element having a refractive index of greater than 1.4 (glass, polycarbonate, etc) and that the first surface is a diffusing surface (see col. 8 lines 63-col. 9 line 8, first reflecting section 7 diffuses light in a widthwise direction Y). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a diffusing reflecting structure as taught by Sato to diffuse the light within the guide of Ichinoe, resulting in an aesthetic and uniform light output, as desired in the art. The combination of Ichinoe in view of Sato teaches that the first diffusing surface being configured to receive the collimated light and to diffuse the collimated light in a first direction transverse to a first propagation direction of the collimated light (laterally with respect to propagation direction), such that the diffused light has an angular distribution in the first direction that is greater than an angular distribution of the light in a direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and to the propagation direction. Yoshino teaches that the second surface is a diffusing surface (see col. 11 lines 45-50, left right diffusion from convex lens elements 436s). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the convex elements of Yoshino to diffuse the light as it is emitted, creating an aesthetic and uniform light output. The combination of Ichinoe in view of Sato and Yoshino teaches the second diffusing surface being configured to receive the light diffused by the first diffusing surface (receives light from light guide), which propagates within the light shaping element from the first diffusing surface to the second diffusing surface and to diffuse the received light in a second direction transverse to a second propagation direction of the collimated light (lateral diffusion with respect to propagation direction), the second direction being transverse to the second propagation direction, such that the diffused light has an angular distribution in the second direction (lateral) that is greater than an angular distribution of the light in a direction that is perpendicular to the second direction and to the propagation direction (height direction is undiffused). The Examiner notes that Ichinoe does not specifically teach diffusing structures with respect to the embodiment in claims 7 and 8, however the structures of 222s1 and 222s2 appear to be diffusing structures, and the intent of the invention is to emit a uniform, even, and diffused light from 222h, see col. 3 lines 37-40. Therefore it would be very obvious to use the specific diffusing structures taught by Yoshino and Sato on the respective surfaces to properly diffuse the light. It is unclear if Ichinoe, Sato, and Yoshino teach that the first diffusing structure is at an air interface. The Examiner takes official notice that internal reflections are well known in the art and obvious to utilize as a cheaper and more effective manner of reflecting light. They are substantial equivalents in the art. Regarding claim 2, Ichinoe teaches that the vehicle light is selected from the group consisting of a taillight, a daytime running light, a brake light, a turn signal light, and a CHMSL (see col. 7 lines 65- col. 8 lines 4). Regarding claim 3, Ichinoe does not specifically teach that a diffusion angle of the light diffused by the second diffusing surface is greater than an inverse tangent of a quotient of the second light-path distance and the distance between neighboring light sources. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the diffusion angle, specifically in light of the ratio of the second light path distance and the distance between neighboring light sources. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456. Various diffusion angles are predictable and well known within the art, higher diffusion angles resulting in more uniform and even emissions that are aesthetically pleasing, and lower diffusion resulting in more collimated light with higher throw range and visibility. Finding the optimum value of the angle of diffusion is well established within the art. Furthermore, establishing such a result effective variable in light of the light path distance of the light source, which results in higher diffusion, and in light of the distance between light sources, which determines undesirable overlap for higher diffusion angles, is well known in the art. In conclusion, the Examiner finds that the relationship between the ratio of the diffusion angle, the light path distance, and the distance between neighboring light sources is an obvious optimization to result in an ideal diffusion of light while preventing overlap of the light output and maintaining good projection range. “However, even though applicant's modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.” Aller 456. The optimization and the relationship between the result effective variables is well within the skill of the art. Regarding claim 4, Ichinoe does not teach that a diffusion angle of the light diffused by the first diffusing surface is greater than an inverse tangent of a quotient of the first light-path distance and the distance between neighboring light sources. The Examiner finds that the relationship between the ratio of the diffusion angle, the light path distance, and the distance between neighboring light sources is an obvious optimization to result in an ideal diffusion of light while preventing overlap of the light output and maintaining good projection range, see claim 3. Regarding claim 6, Ichinoe teaches that light propagating in the light-shaping element experiences total internal reflection at least one of the first diffusing surface and the second diffusing surface. Regarding claim 7, Ichinoe teaches that each of the collimators is configured to collimate light emitted from the light sources into a solid angle of less than five degrees (near parallel). Furthermore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the collimators collimate the light into a solid angle of less than five degrees to provide a high level of collimation and reduce light loss. Regarding claim 8, Ichinoe teaches that the second propagation direction is different from the first propagation direction (first propagation direction is down, second propagation direction is forward). Regarding claim 10, Ichinoe teaches that the collimators, and the first diffusing surface are configured such that a first linear light pattern from the plurality of individual light sources is formed on the second diffusing surface, the first linear light pattern having intensity maxima and minima along a longitudinal axis of the first linear light pattern corresponding to the light sources that are separated in space from each other (see fig. 7, 8). Ichinoe does not specifically teach that the difference between the intensity maxima and minima being less than 50% of the maxima. Yoshino teaches that the difference between the intensity maxima and minima being less than 50% of the maxima (uniformly even, see col. 1 lines 55-60). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used optimized the diffusion angles as taught by Yoshino to result in a uniformly even light emission from the light guide body of Zhao, as is well known and desirable in the art. Regarding claim 11, Ichinoe does not specifically teach that the collimators, the first diffusing surface, and the second diffusing surface are configured such that a linear light pattern from the plurality of individual light sources is formed at a distance five meters away the second diffusing surface, the linear light pattern having intensity maxima and minima along a longitudinal axis of the linear light pattern corresponding to the light sources that are separated in space from each other, the difference between the intensity maxima and minima being less than 50% of the maxima. Yoshino teaches that the difference between the intensity maxima and minima being less than 50% of the maxima (uniformly even, see col. 1 lines 55-60). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used optimized the diffusion angles as taught by Yoshino to result in a uniformly even light emission from the light guide body of Zhao, as is well known and desirable in the art. As the combination of Ichinoe and Yoshino teaches an even light emission from the diffusing surface, any distance would result in the light pattern having the intensity between the maxima and the minima being less than 50% of the maxima. I.e. at 5 meter distance the combination teaches the function. Regarding claim 12, Yoshino teaches that the difference between the intensity maxima and minima being is than 20% of the maxima (even, about 0% difference from maxima and minima). Regarding claim 13, Ichinoe in view of Yoshino teaches that the second diffusing surface has a normal direction, relative to a fixed coordinate system, that changes in a direction along the second direction transverse to a second propagation direction over a length scale that is greater than a wavelength of the light (cylindrical lens structures result in output surface changing with respect to second direction). Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichinoe in view of Sato and Yoshino, further in view of Saito (U.S. 2022/039548). Regarding claim 9, Ichinoe does not teach that the second propagation direction is anti-parallel to the first propagation direction. Saito teaches that the second propagation direction is anti-parallel to the first propagation direction (see annotated figure 5 below). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an arrangement as taught by Saito to enable additional beam widening and a longer light path in the structure of Ichinoe. I.e. the arrangement of Saito enables a smaller footprint for the light emitting structure. PNG media_image1.png 752 622 media_image1.png Greyscale Alternatively, claims 1, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of X. Regarding claim 1, Saito teaches a vehicle light comprising: a plurality of individual light sources, each light source being separated in space from neighboring ones of the light sources (see fig. 1); a plurality of collimators (incidence section 10a collimates light, see fig. 4) configured to collimate light emitted from the light sources; a light-shaping element having a refractive index of greater than 1.4 (see p. 0062) and which includes: a first diffusing surface (19f, see p. 0077) located at a first interface between the light-shaping element and air around the light-shaping element (reflection cuts) and at a first light-path distance from the light sources. Saito does not teach that the first diffusing surface is at an interface between the element and air, and the first diffusing surface being configured to receive the collimated light and to diffuse the collimated light preferentially in a first direction transverse to a first propagation direction of the collimated light, such that the diffused light has an angular distribution in the first direction that is greater than an angular distribution of the light in a direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and to the propagation direction a second diffusing surface located at a second interface between the light-shaping element and air around the light-shaping element and at a second light-path distance from the first diffusing surface, the second diffusing surface being configured to receive the light diffused by the first diffusing surface, which propagates within the light-shaping element from the first diffusing surface to the second diffusing surface and to diffuse the received light preferentially in a second direction transverse to a second propagation direction of the collimated light, the second direction being transverse to the second propagation direction, such that the diffused light has an angular distribution in the second direction that is greater than an angular distribution of the light in a direction that is perpendicular to the second direction and to the propagation direction, the first propagation direction being a direction in which light propagates after being diffused by the first diffusing surface and before being diffused by the second diffusing surface, and the second propagation direction being a direction in which light propagates after being diffused by the second diffusing surface. Yoshino teaches that the the first diffusing surface being configured to receive the collimated light and to diffuse the collimated light preferentially in a first direction transverse to a first propagation direction of the collimated light, such that the diffused light has an angular distribution in the first direction that is greater than an angular distribution of the light in a direction that is perpendicular to the first direction and to the propagation direction (diffuses in left right direction) a second diffusing surface (emission surface, see col. 11 lines 45-50) located at a second interface between the light-shaping element and air around the light-shaping element and at a second light-path distance from the first diffusing surface, the second diffusing surface being configured to receive the light diffused by the first diffusing surface, which propagates within the light-shaping element from the first diffusing surface to the second diffusing surface and to diffuse the received light preferentially in a second direction transverse to a second propagation direction of the collimated light, the second direction being transverse to the second propagation direction, such that the diffused light has an angular distribution in the second direction that is greater than an angular distribution of the light in a direction that is perpendicular to the second direction and to the propagation direction, the first propagation direction being a direction in which light propagates after being diffused by the first diffusing surface and before being diffused by the second diffusing surface, and the second propagation direction being a direction in which light propagates after being diffused by the second diffusing surface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the diffusing emission surface of Yoshino to further diffuse the light of Saito and create a more aesthetic and homogenized light emission. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would use the diffusing structure to diffuse the light in the lateral direction of Saito to fully illuminate the longest direction of the light emitting structure. I.e. Additional diffusion is needed laterally as the light guide extends laterally. It is unclear if Saito and Yoshino teach that the first diffusing structure is at an air interface. The Examiner takes official notice that internal reflections are well known in the art and obvious to utilize as a cheaper and more effective manner of reflecting light. Regarding claim 9, Saito teaches that the second propagation direction is anti-parallel to the first propagation direction (see annotated figure 5 above). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner notes, in the interest of compact prosecution, that the prior art frequently teaches the optical arrangement set forth in the claim, i.e. the specific collimators and propagation directions. Furthermore, the prior art teaches the claimed diffusing structures both as reflectors and as emission surfaces, and specifically in combination with one another. The rejection included is based on the use of known diffusing structures in known light guides arrangements to result in desirable uniform light outputs. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
(Ad) Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months
✓
Custom AI strategy tailored to your specific industry needs
✓
Step-by-step implementation with measurable ROI
✓
5-minute setup that requires zero technical skills
Trusted by 1,000+ companies worldwide